Gays in the military: What would George Washington think?

Townhall.com ^ | July 21, 2008 | Star Parker

[Kaslin]

For the first time since the "don't ask, don't tell" law was enacted in 1993 by President Clinton, the House Armed Services Committee has scheduled hearings to review it. The law disqualifies gays from serving in the military.

Individuals are deemed gay, according to this ruling, if they publicly state so. However, the military is prohibited from asking. Thus, "don't ask, don't tell."

Activists are now pushing for change to allow gays to serve openly.

We can anticipate a technical discussion. Does the presence of openly gay soldiers undermine cohesiveness of units, morale, and discipline? How would retention rates of troops or enlistments be affected?

We can be sure, though, that a discussion about the general moral implications of such a policy will not take place.

Early last year, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace called homosexuality "immoral." More fire and brimstone rained down on him than fell on the residents of Sodom and Gomorra for engaging in this behavior.

Rebukes came from Democrats and Republicans alike. GOP Sen. John Warner, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, writing his own scripture, challenged Pace's view that homosexuality is immoral.

Although a recent Zobgy poll of military personnel shows more opposed to allowing gays to serve openly than favoring (37 percent to 26 percent), the direction of polling of the general public favors the pro-gay forces.

When "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted in 1993, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 percent opposed to homosexuals serving openly and 43 percent in favor. By 2004, Gallup polling indicated 63 percent in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve against 32 percent opposed.

The culture war is like the recipe for boiling a frog. If you drop it in hot water, it jumps out. But if you drop it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, you get frog soup.

Concession by concession, traditional values are being pushed, inexorably, to the margins of America.

It's a sign of this moral war of attrition that each battle is fought with less and less attention to what it means to the overall war.

Acceptance of openly gay people in the military means the next discussion will be qualification of gay couples for the same benefits received by traditional military families.

[Impy]

Anyone even poll the soldiers and see what they think?

[ZULU]

The God upon Whom America so long relied is assuredly distressed again by legitimization of the lifestyle of Sodomists. Its not enough that the libs have banned Him from public life, they insist on poking Him in the eye.

I'm sure Washington, wherever he is, is shaking his head at the nation he helped found for being unable to distinguish freedom from licentiousness.

[lean]

The one thing that sets the church and the military aside from secular society is that we adhere to a higher level standard. Now if you state the reasons why it’s not a good idea, and the problems it could cause, you are labeled a bigot. Before you know it, gay marriage will be condoned, and you will have abunch of gay couples living on base/post.

[loboinok]

What would George Washington think?

"General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.

An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington's actions:

The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same." 2

2. Journals of the American Congress (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, p. 185, on November 28, 1775.

Homosexuals in the Military

[MSF BU]

There was some polling done of some military personell recently and it the results were referenced in an article. A closer looked reveals the poll was commissioned by a homosexual organization and the way the questions were phrased generally lent support to a supportive conclusion. Much like the (FOX? I can’t remember) event where they just asked soldiers randomly to gauge McCain/Obama support and ended up with a result along the lines of 65/4, I don’t think you’ll hear/read/see too much from the media that doesn’t support the homosexual agenda for the military.

[ChocChipCookie]

I’d be very interested in learning about the affects on military morale and effectiveness in countries that openly allow gays to serve. However, I don’t expect unbiased info to be readily available.

[bushfamfan]

You don’t even have to ask what George Washington would think! And this is just an extension of the moral ambiguity of this country that is really setting our country up for its downfall.

[Wuli]

“Although a recent Zobgy poll of military personnel shows more opposed to allowing gays to serve openly than favoring (37 percent to 26 percent), the direction of polling of the general public favors the pro-gay forces.”

[wolfcreek]

Well, ‘ol George DID have a set of wooden teeth.

[kellynla]

Thanks for posting.

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[xc1427]

Pardon me for what I am about to do, but it must be said...

George Washington would not be very gay (happy) concerning this military development.

[Gritty]

If this were seriously being considered, George Washington would likely have offered his service to the British as a Tory. He knew grossly immoral, reprobate, and destructive behavior when he saw it. He would never align himself with the side that aligned itself with the Devil.

Permitting this sort of thing would likely end by the destruction of our military as a cohesive entity. It would be split into factions and militant homosexuality and politically correct demands would completely destroy it's moral and interpersonal bonds. People with a moral compass would flee the organization in droves. We would be left with a military which would eventually be more than willing to force it's own twisted views on the American people.

[Lucky Dog]

Every time this topic shows up, the apparently willful ignorance of some and outright disinformation campaign by others causes my blood pressure to spike. Therefore, whenever possible, I try to put the facts out for all to see:

The legal reality:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” to serve in the military. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power ] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

Homosexual behavior, in general, like theft, assault, drug abuse, etc., is counter to good order and discipline within any organization, especially a military one.

This fact, just as with excluding convicted felons or drug abusers, is sufficient reason to exclude homosexual behavior practitioners.

The fiscal reality:

Homosexual behavior practitioners are statistically subject to a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases than the general population.

This fact alone increases the cost of providing medical care for the services. Increased costs in the medical care arena means reduced financial capability to purchase military hardware and pay other military personnel benefits. In short, it decreases the capability of the country fiscally, to provide for the common defense.

However, there is another, even more compelling, reason for exclusion associated with the disease rate among homosexual behavior practitioners.

The combat asset risk reality:

Because HIV/AIDS and other diseases prevalent among homosexual practitioners qualify as blood-borne pathogens, the presence of homosexual behavior practitioners creates statistically increased, and completely unnecessary risk for the loss of combat resources. The long and short of this fact is that these diseases can be spread, among other ways, through contact with the blood of the diseased individual. The military is its own, largest source of material for blood transfusions. Additionally, in a battlefield setting there is never a shortage of blood to create exposure risks to those who are not homosexual practitioners.

Summary:

Homosexual behavior is illegal in the military for very good, legal, logical, fiscal and combat asset risk reasons. Those who have ignored these strictures, either, willfully, or inadvertently, under the so-called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy have caused a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources as well as lowered morale within the military. These costs were entirely driven by individual homosexual practitioners’ hedonistic, selfish motives and behavior and resulted in unnecessary detriment to the mission capability of the US defense establishment.

[stevie_d_64]

Like I said back in the 80’s when all of this was begining to surface as an “issue”...

I commented that the people asking the questions were getting thae answers from the WRONG people in the service...

Instead of Congress asking the Admirals and Generals what they “thought” about this issue and coming up with the lamest campaign slogan ever...”Don’t ask, Don’t tell.”

They (American people) should have been asking the NCO’s and other “senior enlisted” service members what they thought about it...

We were the one’s that actually had to “deal” with the issue, not the flag officers!!!

[Kahonek]

“Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, ‘lust’ defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)”

This one always confuses me. So are you suggesting that they’re only homosexual WHILE they’re actually having sex with someone of the same sex? If not, how long does the effect last, afterwards? What about someone who had a same-sex encounter once in prison twenty years ago, but got out and never looked back? What about those who are raped by others of the same sex? Does the act have to be voluntary? Do you have to have sex with the opposite sex to be heterosexual, or are there heterosexual virgins out there?

Do you seriously think that there’s no difference between a guy who has the hots for guys and one who has the hots for girls, as long as they’ve never had sex? Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter?

I think this idea that sexual orientation is a non-entity is really misleading. Are you suggesting that Peter Pace could become just as homosexual as Elton John by getting drunk and having one sexual encounter with a dude?

[Lucky Dog]

This one always confuses me. So are you suggesting that they’re only homosexual WHILE they’re actually having sex with someone of the same sex?

If someone steals, is he or she only a thief while he or she is committing the theft? If someone intentionally, with fore thought and malice, stabs another to death, is he or she only a murder while killing the other person?

On the other hand, if some merely thinks about taking something that rightfully belongs to another, but takes no action, is he or she a thief? Similarly, if a person becomes so angry with another, that they fantasize about stabbing that person, is the day dreamer a murderer?

Do the answers to these questions clear up your confusion?

… how long does the effect last, afterwards?

How long after committing a theft is one a thief? How long after committing first degree homicide does the perpetrator remain a murderer?

What about someone who had a same-sex encounter once in prison twenty years ago, but got out and never looked back?

In deed, what about someone who intentionally cut anther person’s leg off as part of a gang ritual once twenty year ago, and never looked back?

What about those who are raped by others of the same sex? Does the act have to be voluntary?

If a bystander is shot by a thief in the course of a robbery, is the person who was shot guilty of theft?

Do you have to have sex with the opposite sex to be heterosexual, or are there heterosexual virgins out there?

Except for extremely rare cases of gynandromorphy, every person, even a homosexual behavior practitioner, is born heterosexual in that the person has the genitalia of one sex or the other.

Do you seriously think that there’s no difference between a guy who has the hots for guys and one who has the hots for girls, as long as they’ve never had sex?

Is there a difference between a guy who has the hots for sheep and one who has the hots for girls?

Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter?

Have you ever heard of something called a false dichotomy?

I think this idea that sexual orientation is a non-entity is really misleading. Are you suggesting that Peter Pace could become just as homosexual as Elton John by getting drunk and having one sexual encounter with a dude?

Could Peter Pace become just as much a murderer as Sirhan Sirhan by getting drunk and shooting just one dude?

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

The Clintons turned the military into their little social experiment and I loathe them for having done so.

[Kahonek]

Okay — I get your analogy with theft and murder, but your suggestion that the only thing that separates homosexuals and heterosexuals is behavioral still makes no sense to me. Even Jesus suggested that what’s in one’s heart is what’s important when it comes to such things as theft and lust.

When you say “...every person...is born heterosexual in that the person has the genitalia of one sex or the other” you are asserting that it’s something other than behavior that determines sexual orientation, namely the genitalia. I can see how they would determine sex, but not sexual orientation. You say that a person is a homosexual if he has sex with those of the same sex. People don’t change genitalia when they have same-sex encounters. Are they then both heterosexuals and homosexuals at the same time, even if they’ve never had sex with the opposite sex?

“Is there a difference between a guy who has the hots for sheep and one who has the hots for girls?”

I would say YES there IS a difference between the two. Wouldn’t you agree?

“Have you ever heard of something called a false dichotomy?”

I have — are you arguing that whether a virgin male is attracted to men or to women is a false dichotomy, and that you’d be equally happy to have either guy marry your daughter?

[Lucky Dog]

(Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Okay — I get your analogy with theft and murder, but your suggestion that the only thing that separates homosexuals and heterosexuals is behavioral still makes no sense to me.

If a non-psychotic person in possession of feelings never acts upon them, then why can you not understand that applying a behavioral label based upon those feelings to that person inappropriate?

Even Jesus suggested that what’s in one’s heart is what’s important when it comes to such things as theft and lust.

While God or His Son can see into a person’s heart, mere humans cannot. Therefore, we are obliged to judge on the basis of what we can see: behavior.

If a man who is presumably mentally healthy, marries more than one woman, we call him a polygamist and legally sanction him accordingly. However, if he merely want to marry more than one woman in his heart but does not, do we call him a polygamist or visit legal sanctions upon him? It does not matter to any, except God, if he feels like marrying more than one woman but does not. For that matter, if a woman feels like she wants to sell her body, but does not, is she a prostitute?

Similarly, if a man feels like he wants to lie with another man as with a woman, but does not, then why is he any different the man who feels like he wants to marry more than one woman or the woman who feels like she wants to sell her body?

When you say “...every person...is born heterosexual in that the person has the genitalia of one sex or the other” you are asserting that it’s something other than behavior that determines sexual orientation, namely the genitalia.

Recall your original question: Do you have to have sex with the opposite sex to be heterosexual, or are there heterosexual virgins out there? You said nothing about sexual orientation. Remember that the term sexual orientation is about feelings. Being heterosexual is about the presence of one type of genitalia versus another. No one except God can know how you, or anyone else feels about your genitalia unless you take some action. Therefore, it is possible to be a heterosexual virgin, but it is impossible to be a homosexual behavior practitioner who is a virgin.

…are you arguing that whether a virgin male is attracted to men or to women is a false dichotomy, and that you’d be equally happy to have either guy marry your daughter?

The reason I raised the issue of a false dichotomy is because you presented one, not I. In that spirit, I will answer your question thusly: I want a mentally and physically healthy, gainfully employed, committed Christian, man to marry my daughter.

Your reply?

[Kahonek]

I guess I partly don’t understand it because I’m not using it as a behavioral label. My dictionary defines the word “homosexual,” when used as a noun, as “a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.” It doesn’t say anything about behavior. This is the definition that I think is most accepted by scholars and non-scholars alike today.

“No one except God can know how you, or anyone else feels about your genitalia unless you take some action.”

I think I understand what you’re saying here, but what if the action you take is to tell others about it, or to date other people of the same sex? Clearly, there is a difference between a young man who says “I have never been attracted to women, but I find men arousing,” and one who says “I have never been attracted to men, but I find women arousing.” I think you recognize this, which may be why you didn’t respond to my inquiry about your sheep comment. You asked the question, and I responded. Do you agree that there’s a difference between someone who is aroused by sheep and someone who is aroused by women?

Frankly, I fail to see the false dichotomy. Most research shows that the vast majority of young men find women (and only women) attractive, while a small minority of young men find men (and only men) attractive, and that there’s not much in the middle. Sounds pretty much like a dichotomy to me.

[Citizen Blade]

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” works. It allows patriotic gays (and there are a number in the military) to serve in the military, but protects military cohesion and prevents the armed forces from being used for political purposes by gay activists.

The only people opposed to the current policy are fanatics on both sides of the political spectrum. The current policy works for the military and it works for gays who want to quietly serve their country.

[Lucky Dog]

I guess I partly don’t understand it because I’m not using it as a behavioral label. My dictionary defines the word “homosexual,” when used as a noun, as “a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.” It doesn’t say anything about behavior. This is the definition that I think is most accepted by scholars and non-scholars alike today.

Ok, let’s tackle this issue once more:

A man who marries more than one woman, is called a polygamist and suffers legal sanctions if caught. However, his merely being attracted to, and wanting to marry, more than one woman does not result in him being called a polygamist or suffering legal sanctions.

What do your dictionary, scholars and non-scholars say about this word?

A woman who sells her sexual favors is called a prostitute and suffers legal sanctions if caught (except in Nevada). However, if a woman merely wants to sell her body, but does not, she is not called a prostitute.

What do your dictionary, scholars and non-scholars say about this word?

Does polygamy involve sexual activity? Does prostitution? Is some one who merely feels like they wish to engage in these activities but doesn’t labeled with these words? Does homosexual behavior involve sexual activity? Why should someone who merely is attracted to the same sex but does nothing about be labeled such? In short, unless it is a psychosis, why is the term “homosexual” any different? Is the logic clear, yet?

No one except God can know what attractions a person feels absent some action. … what if the action you take is to tell others about it, or to date other people of the same sex?

Is a person called a thief who merely tells others that he or she is attracted to taking the property of others? Is a person who picks up some else’s property, looks at and replaces it called a thief? How about someone who picks up another person for a movie and drops them at their quarters? How about some one who says “you make me mad enough to kill you” and then slaps the object of his or her hatred but does no real damage. Is this person called a murderer merely because he or she says the activity was attractive?

Clearly, there is a difference between a young man who says “I have never been attracted to women, but I find men arousing,” and one who says “I have never been attracted to men, but I find women arousing.”

You are correct, there is a difference assuming they both are being truthful. This is a different dimension of the discussion. See below.

I think you recognize this, which may be why you didn’t respond to my inquiry about your sheep comment. You asked the question, and I responded. Do you agree that there’s a difference between someone who is aroused by sheep and someone who is aroused by women?

Yes there is a difference. However, let me point out that it was originally my question about whether there was a difference. My purpose in posing the question was draw a parallel between being “men being attracted to sheep” and “men being attracted to other men” (from your earlier question). Carrying the point just a bit further, most people would see being sexually attracted to a sheep (or any barnyard animal) as a psychosis. Now, do you see it?

Frankly, I fail to see the false dichotomy.

Your dichotomy presented to me was Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter. (Note: a dichotomy is, by definition, only two choices. A false dichotomy is where there are more than two choices despite the presentation of only two.) I answered that I would choose neither of the alternatives you presented, but a third option, on which you did not comment.

Most research shows that the vast majority of young men find women (and only women) attractive, while a small minority of young men find men (and only men) attractive, and that there’s not much in the middle. Sounds pretty much like a dichotomy to me.

Since there are only two sexes, choosing one is obviously a dichotomy. However, since you brought it up, let me put a few facts in the discussion:

Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would appear in the population at no greater rate than that of genetic disorders that prevent their victims from procreating e.g., Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome. This rate is far lower than the currently observed/reported homosexual proportion of the population.

Therefore, we are back to homosexual behavior being a choice or a psychosis. Robbing banks is a behavioral choice and kleptomania is a psychosis. All behavioral choices have consequences. Rational people weight the consequences before engaging in the activity, psychotics do not.

[Kahonek]

I’m quite familiar with what a false dichotomy is. I just don’t think that I presented one. Are you familiar with the term “false analogy?” I appreciate your effort to argue by analogy, and it makes sense up to a point, but all analogies fall short eventually. I could just as easily argue using the analogy of an extrovert, who might be quiet as a mouse while sitting in a library or courtroom, but is no less of an extrovert there.

I would agree that there is a difference between one who has acted on homosexual inclinations and one who has had them but has not acted. However, both are homosexuals, and they are fundamentally different from heterosexuals. Not only science recognizes this, but the Vatican and the Army, as well. Clearly, the Catholic church finds it necessary to distinguish between “heterosexuals,” “active homosexuals,” and those “with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (even if they’ve never had sex). Who is excluded in ordination and military service? Both of the latter categories, or (in other words) “homosexuals.” In fact, someone who has had a same sex encounter in the past is qualified for both military service and the priesthood, as long as he is not a “homosexual” (meaning, a member of either of the latter two categories).

Clearly this distinction is a meaningful one for the Church, for the military, and I daresay for the marital satisfaction of a spouse. I don’t think I presented a false dichotomy — I am fairly certain that you’d choose someone who is attracted to women, rather than men, if you were choosing a husband for your daughter. I believe that this is likely implicit in the answer you provided.

It’s very clear that homosexual orientation is not a choice, except perhaps in some very unusual circumstances. Homosexual behavior is most certainly a choice. As for whether orientation is a psychosis or not, that’s largely a semantic game. Your arguments about genetics notwithstanding, a genotype does not have to confer a reproductive advantage specific to its bearer in order to persist. Creative evolutionists have found ways to explain the persistence of homosexuality. However, whether it is genetic or not does not have any bearing on whether it is a psychosis. After all, there is very strong evidence that schizophrenia, which is widely recognized as a psychotic condition, is largely genetic.

[supercat]

Summary...

The summary leaves out the most important point: the purpose of the military is to defend the country and win wars. That it can offer any benefit to the men and women who participate in those tasks is a nice secondary feature, but it is not nearly as important as the military's primary function. Those who would compromise the effectiveness of the military to use it as an instrument of social change are at best naïve; note that many of the people who push military social issues don't want an effective military, characterizing such people as 'at best naïve' is being charitable.

[supercat]

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would appear in the population at no greater rate than that of genetic disorders that prevent their victims from procreating e.g., Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome. This rate is far lower than the currently observed/reported homosexual proportion of the population.

Not necessarily true. Suppose that a particular gene were to cause carriers, whether male or female, to be particularly strongly attracted to men. Such a gene might reduce the reproductive success rate of male carriers, but increase the success rate of female carriers. If the latter effect counterbalanced the former, the gene could be passed on indefinitely through generations. If the 'enhancement' effect of the gene on females was reduced at higher concentrations(*) it could achieve a stable concentration in society.

(*)The gene might make females compete more effectively for certain mates, but if too many females carried it they would crowd each other out, thus losing their advantage.

[Kahonek]

p.s. The military doesn’t use “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” lingo — it’s much more specific:

“(1) The term ‘homosexual’ means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian.’”

Do you have anything other than an analogy that says they’re wrong?

[Citizen Blade]

Those who would compromise the effectiveness of the military to use it as an instrument of social change are at best naïve; note that many of the people who push military social issues don't want an effective military, characterizing such people as 'at best naïve' is being charitable.

Very well stated. If allowing open homosexuals to serve would improve the effectiveness of the military, I would be all for it, regardless of whether it might piss off certain civilians. But that is clearly not the case- military effectiveness would be hampered.

Some homosexual activists like to draw the analogy to desegregating the military in the 50's. But there was no evidence that a segregated military was more effective, and 50 years of evidence shows that an integrated military has been more effective. There is no evidence that changing the policy regarding homosexuals would be a positive move.

[supercat]

Do you have anything other than an analogy that says they’re wrong?

Since the military defines what it means by the term, for purposes of its own rules it means what it says.

With the exception of "intends to engage in", the list all refers to overt acts. Even the "intends to engage in" term relates to a level of motivation that extends beyond mere desire, fantasy, or inclination.

[supercat]

If allowing open homosexuals to serve would improve the effectiveness of the military, I would be all for it, regardless of whether it might piss off certain civilians.

I wish more politicians who oppose gays in the military would make a statement like the above. It would help remind the public what the military is supposed to be about, and would counteract any implication that politicians trying to keep gays out of the military value bible-thumping above military effectiveness (since they're kicking out people who would otherwise serve oh-so-nobly).

[Kahonek]

A “propensity” is not an overt act, but for the record, I was directing the question to Lucky Dog, who’s been arguing against the military’s definition of the term (via analogy) with every post.

[Lucky Dog]

Suppose that a particular gene…

Let’s just look at facts and logic rather than supposition.

Do you find anything that is not a fact or is a logical fallacy in the following statement?

Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual.)

All of the suppositions you propose could be applied to the disease I cited (Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome). Yet there is not the proportion of those disease sufferers in the population to match homosexual behavior practitioners, is there? Your assertion fails the test of logic.

[Lucky Dog]

The summary leaves out the most important point: the purpose of the military

Perhaps you missed the first part of the post (reprinted below for you):

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” to serve in the military. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

[Lucky Dog]

p.s. The military doesn’t use “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” lingo — it’s much more specific:

“(1) The term ‘homosexual’ means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian.’”

Do you have anything other than an analogy that says they’re wrong Perhaps you missed part of my earlier post (reprinted below for you):

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

I think you will find that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is exactly the lingo that the military uses. Therefore, let me call your attention to a particular portion of the above cited reference: font color="red"> Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense,

You will, perhaps, note that Penetration requires an action, i.e., a behavior. Merely being attracted does not qualify.

If you re-read my posts… never mind… here is a portion (reposted for you, again):

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation merely clouds the issue and refers to a “feeling.” Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer. “Feelings” are irrelevant to voluntary, reasoned behavior.)

Now, perhaps, you will tell me, again, with which portion of my discussion you are disagreeing?

[Lucky Dog]

I’m quite familiar with what a false dichotomy is. I just don’t think that I presented one.

From one of your earlier posts: Do you seriously think that there’s no difference between a guy who has the hots for guys and one who has the hots for girls, as long as they’ve never had sex?

From my reply to you: Is there a difference between a guy who has the hots for sheep and one who has the hots for girls?

From one of your earlier posts: Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter? From another of my earlier posts: The reason I raised the issue of a false dichotomy is because you presented one, not I. In that spirit, I will answer your question thusly: I want a mentally and physically healthy, gainfully employed, committed Christian, man to marry my daughter.

The false dichotomy with which you presented me was a choice between perverted sexual practitioner and a sexually normal man as a husband for my daughter. Note that my selection specified neither of the choices you proffered. Therefore, since there was an option other than those you specified, you were guilty of a false dichotomy.

Are you familiar with the term “false analogy?” I appreciate your effort to argue by analogy, and it makes sense up to a point, but all analogies fall short eventually. I could just as easily argue using the analogy of an extrovert, who might be quiet as a mouse while sitting in a library or courtroom, but is no less of an extrovert there.

If you were not previously acquainted with the extrovert you cited above, and saw nothing of his or her behavior before you saw the person sitting quietly in the library or courtroom, how would you know he or she was an extrovert? Could you accurately predict that the person was going to engage in extroverted activity merely on seeing him or her so quietly seated? Your attempted analogy proves my point exactly, i.e., Homosexuality is defined by behavior… Being an extrovert or introvert is a mental proclivity that is completely unknown to any but its possessor absent some action. Similarly, having a homosexual attraction is completely unknown to any but its possessor absent some action.

I would agree that there is a difference between one who has acted on homosexual inclinations and one who has had them but has not acted. However, both are homosexuals, and they are fundamentally different from heterosexuals.

Yet again, I would ask you, are polygamists or prostitutes are fundamentally different those who practice monogamous sexual activities? I would, yet, again, also ask if someone merely wants to marry multiple women or sell sexual favors are those people polygamist and prostitutes? If you are going classify someone solely on the “feelings” that he or she has but does not act upon, then you are in the realm of mental illness descriptions, i.e., bi-polar, schizoid, etc. Is it your position that homosexual behavior practitioners are mentally ill, i.e., psychotic?

From an earlier post of mine: Any human behavior (excluding autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

Your earlier statement (… they [homosexuals] are fundamentally different from heterosexuals) is true only if you concede that homosexuality is a psychosis.

Not only science recognizes this, but the Vatican and the Army, as well. Clearly, the Catholic church finds it necessary to distinguish between “heterosexuals,” “active homosexuals,” and those “with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (even if they’ve never had sex).

These same organizations find it necessary to distinguish between those with kleptomaniacal tendencies and those who have actually stolen. Is it your point to hold that homosexuality is a psychosis similar to kleptomania?

It’s very clear that homosexual orientation is not a choice, except perhaps in some very unusual circumstances.

I disagree with. However, I also maintain that whether or not your statement is true or false, it is irrelevant outside the bounds of mental health classifications.

Homosexual behavior is most certainly a choice.

At last, we agree.

As for whether orientation is a psychosis or not, that’s largely a semantic game.

I would agree with you except for a very important issue. Homosexual behavior activists have managed to get the term “sexual orientation” codified into anti-discrimination laws in a number of places. Additionally, they are using this stalking horse in an attempt to get homosexual practitioners accepted into the military. Therefore, it cannot be simply brushed off and ignored as largely a semantic game.

Your arguments about genetics notwithstanding, a genotype does not have to confer a reproductive advantage specific to its bearer in order to persist.

However, a genetic disorder that creates a reproductive dis- advantage specific to its bearer specifically as in no reproduction will persist only as a genetic disorder in the quantities of population similar to the disease I cited.

Creative evolutionists have found ways to explain the persistence of homosexuality.

Without facts and logic such are mere flights of fantasy and should be regarded as such.

However, whether it is genetic or not does not have any bearing on whether it is a psychosis. After all, there is very strong evidence that schizophrenia, which is widely recognized as a psychotic condition, is largely genetic.

Regardless, psychoses are treated and, in some cases, cured. Psychosis surfers are not given special rights nor permitted in the military service.

[Kahonek]

I admire your persistence and perspicacity. As for your first response, I did not need to re-read your post to recall that you defined “sodomy” from the Uniform Code. I was quoting from US law that defined “homosexual.” ( http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C37.txt )Your definition of “sodomy,” of course is one that works with members of the same or opposite sexes. The definition of “homosexual” is the one that is germane to our discussion. You are claiming that a homosexual is one who commits sodomy with members of the same sex. I am claiming that the US government has a different definition of “homosexual,” one that is much more consistent with the understanding of nearly everyone else I’ve met.

I’ll get to your next post in a bit...

[Lucky Dog]

You are claiming that a homosexual is one who commits sodomy with members of the same sex. I am claiming that the US government has a different definition of “homosexual,” one that is much more consistent with the understanding of nearly everyone else I’ve met.

Recall that the title of the originally posted article of the is this thread is Gays in the military: What would George Washington think?. Therefore, I submit that the definition from the UCMJ is the appropriate one for our discussion. Your counter arguments using a different source tend to take the discussion into debate territory where it becomes dueling authority sources and there can be no resolution.

[Kahonek]

“Your counter arguments using a different source tend to take the discussion into debate territory where it becomes dueling authority sources and there can be no resolution.”

I am quoting from General Military Law of the United States, which seems perfectly relevant. The difference is not merely one of sources, it is a difference of terms. You quote a codified definition of “sodomy” and then make up from it your own definition of “homosexual.” I don’t disagree with your definition of “sodomy.” I disagree with your definition of “homosexual.” Thus, I quoted from the most relevant source that codifies a definition of “homosexual.” That definition is different from the one which you have manufactured.

Clearly, the terms “sodomy” and “homosexual” do not have the same meaning. The first is an act, and the second is an adjective or an individual. Indeed, the military definition of “sodomy” can be applied to a heterosexual context.

Sorry I haven’t had time to get to your other post, but briefly, I agree that one can’t know someone else’s sexual orientation (yet) just by looking at the person. However, I would also note that one cannot know someone’s sexual orientation by knowing with whom that person has sex. There are heterosexual individuals who have sex with others of the same sex due to environmental pressure (in prisons, ships, and pornography), and there are homosexual people who never have sex at all. The best predictor of orientation is what someone says about their orientation. It is possible for an individual difference variable to exist even if it is not directly observable (e.g. extroversion).

[Lucky Dog]

I am enjoying our little debate. it a pleasure to engage someone who debates subject matter rather than engages in personal attacks as a number of people on do.

Unfortunately, I must leave the discussion for travel. I will attempt to check in at my destination several hours from now.

Please continue with your responses.

In so far as the definition of "homosexual" is concerned, please review my posts and you will note that I have consistently used the phrase "homosexual behavior practitioner" or "homosexual practitioner." These terms refer to one who "practices" homosexual acts, i.e., sodomy with members of the same sex.

Therefore, you may use the term, "homosexual" in whatever context you have defined previously and it still does not affect my points.

C ya L8r,

Lucky Dog

[Kahonek]

Glad to hear that. Unfortunately, I’m traveling tomorrow too and will be away from the ‘net for awhile, so I may not be able to respond. However, I’m not sure how different our positions really are. I was responding to your initial post, where you stated:

“Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual.”

That was really what I was taking issue with. Every major behavioral science, the Pope, the military, and my grandma agree that people who have a propensity, predisposition, predilection, or deep-seated tendency (call it what you will) to have sex with those of the same sex, i.e., those who are sexually attracted to others of the same sex, are “homosexuals,” whether they’ve had gay sex or not. They have a sexual orientation that is correlated with (but distinct from) their behavior.

Your position seems reminiscent of B.F. Skinner and the radical behavioral psychologists of the middle of the last century, who insisted that no psychological construct existed unless it could be observed directly. That advanced some aspects of the science and made for the development of interesting methodology, but it sure didn’t help the study of personality, sexual orientation, or other such characteristics. Fortunately, scientists since then have realized that they don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are ways to triangulate on individual differences that are not directly observable, whether they be extroversion, homosexuality, or narcissism.

[Lucky Dog]

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, ‘lust’ defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)”

That was really what I was taking issue with.

Not to be trite, but I take issue with those who would take issue with my statement.

Every major behavioral science, the Pope, the military, and my grandma agree that people who have a propensity, predisposition, predilection, or deep-seated tendency (call it what you will) to have sex with those of the same sex, i.e., those who are sexually attracted to others of the same sex, are “homosexuals,” whether they’ve had gay sex or not. They have a sexual orientation that is correlated with (but distinct from) their behavior.

I think you will agree with me that a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to be married to more than one simultaneously, but does not do so, is not called a polygamist. Similarly, I think you will agree the same conditions are true concerning an individual and the term prostitute.

Despite your citation of authorities and learned sources, you have not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. You are herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities.

Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.

Your position seems … that no psychological construct existed unless it could be observed directly.

You have misconstrued my position. I do not maintain that no psychological construct exists if cannot be observed directly. In general, my position is that in the absence of psychoses, psychological constructs are irrelevant to the status of individual rights. In particular, my position is that in the absence of psychoses, only the US Constitution, statutes and judicial pronouncements that do not violate same and individual behavior are relevant to the status of individual rights.

[Kahonek]

Sorry for the absence. Back now...

“I think you will agree with me that a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to be married to more than one simultaneously, but does not do so, is not called a polygamist. Similarly, I think you will agree the same conditions are true concerning an individual and the term prostitute.”

I would definitely agree with you. However, these are different words than the word we were discussing. They are behaviorally defined terms. I don’t see why the fact that they are behaviorally defined has any bearing on the meaning of a completely different word. It’s like trying to argue that “Hispanic” denotes a race, just because it’s commonly used together with words like “Black.” The terms are not parallel — one is an ethnicity and the other a race.

“Despite your citation of authorities and learned sources, you have not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. You are herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities.”

In our discussion so far, I have used dictionary definitions, citations from both culture and law, and the infallible word of my grandmother. The lexicon of a society is derived from cultural consensus. Thus, the sources I have used seem to me to be the most relevant. You are the outlier here, and I am afraid that you cannot change the meaning of a word through analogical argument. Try convincing a Chicago car mechanic that the compartment at the rear of his car is really a “boot,” and not a “trunk.” Try convincing a hoodlum in a London pub that his favorite sport is not “football,” but “soccer.” For that matter, it makes no logical sense to place the period in that last sentence inside the quotation marks. It has nothing to do with the word I’m referring to, and it would be much more logical to place it outside the quotes, as the Brits do. Does that mean that my fifth grade grammar teacher (and all the other authorities on the subject in the U.S.) are wrong?

“Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.”

Again, the analogy breaks down. The issues you raise above are empirical questions of science, not semantic and lexical questions. The former require empirical and logical evidence. The latter are culturally defined.

[Lucky Dog]

Sorry for the absence. Back now...

Welcome back.

… polygamist… prostitute… etc.

I would definitely agree with you. However, these are different words than the word we were discussing [homosexual]. They are behaviorally defined terms. I don’t see why the fact that they are behaviorally defined has any bearing on the meaning of a completely different word… [homosexual]

OK… here is the question you have failed to answer now directly addressed to you:

If a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to marry all of them simultaneously, but takes no action is not called a polygamist, why is a man who is attracted to other men and wants to engage in homosexual behavior, but does not take action called a homosexual?

In both cases previously cited, a desired action not indulged is a component. In both cases there is no way to know what the individual feels and/or desires unless he engages in an action (speech, probably, at the minimum). Therefore, please define your difference without referring to an action.

In our discussion so far, I have used dictionary definitions, citations from both culture and law, and the infallible word of my grandmother. The lexicon of a society is derived from cultural consensus.

Please look up the dictionary definition for the word witch (which would probably be agreed upon by culture and law, and the infallible word of your grandmother) and tell me how you would determine that an individual fit said definition(s) absent some action on the part of the labeled individual. Similarly, please look up the dictionary definition for the word manic and tell me how you would determine that an individual fit said definition absent some action. Dictionary definitions exist for both of these descriptors (again, probably be agreed upon by culture and law, and the infallible word of your grandmother). However, it is impossible to knowledgably and validly apply to the terms to any person without the labeled individual, first, having engaged in some action (and, perhaps, not even, then).

… I am afraid that you cannot change the meaning of a word through analogical argument.

“The glass is half empty.” “The glass is half full.” “The container is at fifty percent capacity.” These are potentially true statements that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation. However, correctly calling an individual a “homosexual” is never a true statement that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation unless the labeled individual engages in some behavior, activity or action.

Try convincing a Chicago car mechanic that the compartment at the rear of his car is really a “boot,” and not a “trunk.”

Determining what is either an automobile “boot” or a car “trunk” will require nothing but direct observation. To wit, simply looking at two, motionless, silent and potentially identical sedans will determine that either term is the compartment at the rear of either car. However, can you tell me by direct observation of two motionless, silent, identically dressed and groomed men if either, neither or both, are a homosexual?

Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.”

Again, the analogy breaks down. The issues you raise above are empirical questions of science, not semantic and lexical questions. The former require empirical and logical evidence. The latter are culturally defined.

Either you chose to ignore, or have completely missed, my point. Therefore, let’s try it once more: In the absence of, either individual actions or telepathy, semantic and lexical terms, whether determined by consensus among learned authorities, or other wise, used to label a person based solely upon that individual’s feelings and/or desires are nothing but arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, potentially, totally false.

In summary, your arguments and citations notwithstanding, you have failed to meet my challenge: You have, as of this juncture, not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. Therefore, you are, once again, herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities. (By the way, a dictionary is nothing more than an authority.)

To save time for the remainder of our discussion, I will concede the following: homo means same, hetero means different and sex means the property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs.

[Kahonek]

“If a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to marry all of them simultaneously, but takes no action is not called a polygamist, why is a man who is attracted to other men and wants to engage in homosexual behavior, but does not take action called a homosexual?”

Because, as I have already pointed out, these are two entirely different words with two entirely different meanings. The first behaviorally anchored. The second is not. It is defined by an attraction.

You are arguing by analogies that don’t work. It is entirely possible for a noun to be valid in the absence of behavioral corroboration. It is fully possible (though certainly not fully optimal) for a “leg man” to be married to a double amputee.

“However, correctly calling an individual a ‘homosexual’ is never a true statement that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation unless the labeled individual engages in some behavior, activity or action.”

To some extent, you are correct here. However, I am not talking about the proper application of the word to a specific target, I am talking about the definition of the word. I have absolutely no idea how to diagnose a medulloblastoma, but I can define it. The latter does not necessarily require the former. By conflating the two, you are painting yourself into a corner. After all, people can lie about their orientation. If you must actually observe someone having sex with another person of the same sex before that person is a homosexual, then I doubt there are very many homosexuals out there, and the military shouldn’t have to turn many people down.

“However, can you tell me by direct observation of two motionless, silent, identically dressed and groomed men if either, neither or both, are a homosexual?”

I can’t. Are you suggesting that means that they aren’t homosexual until someone SEES them having sex with another man? Your argument is getting pretty weird at this point.

“semantic and lexical terms, whether determined by consensus among learned authorities, or other wise, used to label a person based solely upon that individual’s feelings and/or desires are nothing but arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, potentially, totally false.”

I wholeheartedly agree that one can potentially misuse words. However, that’s not the same as saying they are meaningless or insisting that they must have behavioral anchors. We use PLENTY of subjective terms — words like love, funny, pervert, or attractive.

[Lucky Dog]

“If a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to marry all of them simultaneously, but takes no action is not called a polygamist, why is a man who is attracted to other men and wants to engage in homosexual behavior, but does not take action called a homosexual?”

Because, as I have already pointed out, these are two entirely different words with two entirely different meanings. The first behaviorally anchored. The second is not. It is defined by an attraction.

“However, correctly calling an individual a ‘homosexual’ is never a true statement that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation unless the labeled individual engages in some behavior, activity or action.”

To some extent, you are correct here. However, I am not talking about the proper application of the word to a specific target, I am talking about the definition of the word.

Herein lies the crux of the issue.

After all, people can lie about their orientation.

In deed, this is my point exactly!!! Even telling a lie (ala corporal Klinger of the TV show MASH) about being a homosexual, whether it is true, or not, is in itself an action (speech). Therefore, we are back to my contention that neither you, nor anyone else, can know if another individual is a homosexual unless that individual takes some action.

If you must actually observe someone having sex with another person of the same sex before that person is a homosexual, then I doubt there are very many homosexuals out there, and the military shouldn’t have to turn many people down.

Direct observation of a behavior is not the only objective source of evidence. Consider the following: an individual is correctly diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, syphilis, chlamydia and hepatitis C, simultaneously, shows no evidence of intravenous drug use and denies such, has never been seen in the company of females, is identified by another, known (observed), homosexual practitioner as his partner and the individual, himself, claims to be a homosexual practitioner. While you may never directly observe the individual in question participating in homosexual activity, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he is not lying.

Please note that the diseases cited above can only be acquired through one of three actions, intravenous drug use, heterosexual activity and homosexual activity. Two of these actions can be ruled out through circumstantial evidence. The individual’s claim to be a homosexual practitioner is an action (speech). The actions, their effects and the circumstantial evidence are sufficient to draw a valid conclusion without having to directly observe the homosexual activity directly.

“However, can you tell me by direct observation of two motionless, silent, identically dressed and groomed men if either, neither or both, are a homosexual?”

I can’t.

Again, my point, exactly!!! …no behavior, no homosexual label, regardless of whether or not the definition of the word, homosexual contains feelings.

Are you suggesting that means that they aren’t homosexual until someone SEES them having sex with another man?

No. I am maintaining that neither you, nor anyone else, can correctly identify an individual as a homosexual unless, and until, that individual has taken some action. Therefore, any sanction, such as refusing to allow homosexuals to serve in the military, is inapplicable purely on how that individual “feels,” i.e., attracted to others of the same sex. The individual must exhibit behavior, and, in effect, earn the label, the definition of the word, homosexual, based upon feelings, notwithstanding.

Your argument is getting pretty weird at this point.

On the contrary, my argument is logically valid and factually sound.

“semantic and lexical terms, whether determined by consensus among learned authorities, or other wise, used to label a person based solely upon that individual’s feelings and/or desires are nothing but arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, potentially, totally false.”

I wholeheartedly agree that one can potentially misuse words. However, that’s not the same as saying they are meaningless or insisting that they must have behavioral anchors. We use PLENTY of subjective terms — words like love, funny, pervert, or attractive.

I have never maintained all words must have behavioral anchors. Similarly, I have never maintained that all subjective terms are meaningless.

What I have maintained is that those words, such as homosexual or polygamist, etc., for which sanctions or restrictions can be applied, must have objective behavioral anchors in contrast to unsupported, subjective assessments of how another individual feels. Without such behavioral anchors, any such sanctions or restrictions become purely arbitrary and cannot withstand the test of legality or common sense.

[Kahonek]

Well then, that’s easy. I agree that one should have some sort of evidence (most likely behaviorally based) before imposing sanctions or restrictions. The military does that now. However, it seems to me that you’ve been arguing over the definition of the word “homosexual,” which is an entirely different matter. A person can be a homosexual without ever having engaged in sex, attempting to marry someone of the same sex, or admitting his homosexuality to others. However, that person won’t be kicked out of the military, under current law. Kicking a person out requires behavioral evidence, of one sort or another.

[Lucky Dog]

Please allow me to reprise part of my original comment:

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a polygamist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

If you agree that one should have some sort of evidence (most likely behaviorally based), you are, in essence, agreeing with me that homosexuality is "defined" by behavior unless it is a psychosis. If there is no homosexual behavior (which includes speech claiming to be a homosexual), no one is objectively a homosexual.

[Kahonek]

hehe. I said that one should have some sort of evidence (most likely behaviorally based) before imposing sanctions or restrictions. I did not say that behavioral evidence is needed for someone to BE a homosexual, which is what you were suggesting in your original comment. Not all homosexuals are kicked out of the military.

I agree that without evidence you cannot PROVE that anyone is a homosexual. That does not make them any less gay. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen the term “objectively homosexual” before. Does one only “become” homosexual when you can prove it?

[Lucky Dog]

Does one only “become” homosexual when you can prove it?

Does one only become a polygamist, if you can prove it?

[Kahonek]

Well, Lucky Dog, it seems that our discussion has come full circle. If you are not willing to admit that “homosexual” and “polygamist” are not parallel terms, you are welcome to go ahead and use your own private definition of each word, and the rest of the world will use another. Problem solved...